The new U.S. pier off Gaza is back in operational mode, after breaking apart and undergoing a week of repairs. Despite the rocky start, this American initiative could serve as a steppingstone towards a new, more peaceful, post-war Israeli-Palestinian reality. But for this to happen, the U.S. will need to leverage opportunities, address regional skepticism and bring the Palestinians on board.
Diplomatic efforts to devise a possible endgame to the war in Gaza are in high gear. In his recent Middle East visit, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has reportedly made progress in assembling the pieces for a package that will end the war in Gaza, release Israeli hostages held by Hamas, normalize Israel-Saudi ties and create a pathway towards an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution.
While ideas for a better future are being put on paper, with the hope that leaders in the region will eventually play along, a significant step is already taking place on the ground. On May 17, the U.S. pier off Gaza began operating, enabling humanitarian aid to enter the Strip via a sea corridor from Cyprus.
President Biden announced the initiative during the March 7 State of the Union address to increase the inflow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and thus improve the situation of the Palestinian population there. It is in line with the sea corridor Amalthea Initiative advanced by Cyprus since the early days of the war and is enjoying international support.
The pier is framed as temporary and technical, but its establishment can have longer-term implications, that will also support reconstruction in Gaza. It provides opportunities, which If leveraged correctly can jumpstart the de-facto shaping of new realities. The operationalization of the pier, which is already facing challenges in its first days, is a testing ground for possible post-war security and administrative arrangements. It gives early indications of the type of problems that need to be solved.
The implementation of this project could assist a renewal of Palestinian governance in the Gaza Strip, by providing roles and responsibilities to non-Hamas Palestinian actors, including the Palestinian Authority. These could be gradually expanded in support of an eventual renewed unification between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Should the temporary pier create a permanent shipping route, taking into account Israeli security concerns and well-coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, it will put an end to the Israeli naval blockade over Gaza that has been in place since the 2007 Hamas takeover. The pier can also evolve into a seaport in Gaza Strip, which has been discussed since the early 1990s and is part of recent plans for Gaza’s future.
The pier and its operationalization already grant concrete roles to Cyprus, the base for the sea corridor to Gaza, and the United Arab Emirates, a major provider of aid delivered. This provides a concrete example of a constructive European and Gulf involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue at a time when countries seek meaningful ways to contribute.
But for these opportunities to be fulfilled, the U.S. should acknowledge and tackle negative perceptions and concerns that exist in the Middle East toward the pier. Many in the region, including Palestinians, suspect that the American initiative is guided by hidden intentions. They see the pier as potentially enabling a new type of indirect occupation of Gaza, fearing it will become a tool for external actors to control the flow of humanitarian aid, and benefit from the yet-undeveloped natural gas field off the Gaza coast.
Some accuse Israel of ill-intentions. They suspect that the real motivation for establishing the pier is to allow Israel to counter International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice accusations; they claim that aid is flowing smoothly to Gaza without Israeli interventions. Critics also fear that the pier will make it easier for Israel to close land crossings into Gaza, without facing consequences. On its own, the pier cannot provide the scope of aid and materials needed by Gazans, so other crossings remain vital.
The pier was initiated due to specific circumstances and domestic U.S. political needs, and once conditions change there is no assurance for Gazans that it will not be removed. Some Palestinians also assume that the pier will eventually be used to encourage Gazans to leave the Strip, either by providing an easy way out to those eager to exit (especially youth), or by enabling previous far-right Israeli plans to displace Palestinians. There were also Palestinian claims — rejected by the U.S. — that the pier enabled American support to Israel’s recent hostage release operation.
Despite these concerns, the average Palestinian in Gaza who is suffering from the war is likely to welcome any increase in the flow of aid. Yet, the regional reluctance might limit the fulfillment of the pier’s potential. It also raises American concerns that Palestinian factions may attack the pier. To address Arab public skepticism regarding the new pier, the U.S. should first garner Palestinian buy-in.
Under current conditions, in which no Palestinian elections have taken place since 2006, it is difficult to envision a unified government or legitimate body that can effectively represent Palestinian interests vis-à-vis this American initiative. In the meantime, to alter perceptions as much as possible, the U.S. can indicate that the pier will enable a permanent sea corridor between Cyprus and Gaza, lead to the eventual establishment of a Palestinian port in Gaza, and be part of a pathway towards a two-state solution.
The pier is a new fact on the ground. Its establishment may not be a game-changer, but it opens longer-term opportunities. It could be one of several elements needed to produce legitimate governing authorities as a bridge to the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
The U.S. should not lose sight of this, as it works to overcome challenges related to the pier’s initial operations. The Biden administration should also be aware of regional suspicion toward this new initiative, and alter it via effective messaging, policy clarity and a future-oriented outlook.
Should this be successfully done, the new U.S. pier will not only enable more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, but it could also have a longer-term positive impact in the quest for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Nimrod Goren, Ph.D., is senior fellow for Israeli Affairs at the Middle East Institute. Moien Odeh is an international human rights lawyer. Both are members of Diplomeds — The Council for Mediterranean Diplomacy.